list_available_cursors

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the role of cursors and states that the tool lists them, which implies a read-only operation. Yet it does not explicitly disclose safety, side effects, or any required permissions. The 'list' verb is a strong signal, but additional explicit disclosure would have improved transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long and front-loaded with the primary action ('List all available...'). The second sentence adds useful context without redundancy. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is complete for a tool with zero parameters and an output schema (which covers return values). It explains what cursors are and why they matter, providing sufficient context for selection. No gaps are evident.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the empty input schema is already fully descriptive. The baseline is 4 for no parameters, and the description does not need to add parameter details. It correctly focuses on purpose and context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool 'List all available clearskies cursor types with a short description of each.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cursor_info, which focuses on a single cursor. The scope ('all available') is explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: 'Understanding these is useful for advanced backend customization.' This implies the intended audience and use case. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.